Is xenophobia on the rise in Georgia?

On September 1, 2014 new rules and regulations came into force for foreigners interested in visiting Georgia. Under the previous visa regime, citizens of 118 countries could stay in Georgia without a visa. Many with visa free travel privileges could receive a visa stamp at the airport that would be valid for 360 days, and simply renew their visa by crossing an international border and returning to Georgia. Even nationals of many countries not covered by this visa free travel regime could receive a visa upon arrival in Georgia. This was a liberal visa regime. Under the new visa regime, a shorter list of foreign nationals will be allowed to visit Georgia for 90 days (within a 180-day period), and can receive a visa stamp upon arrival. The new policy intends to bring Georgia in line with EU policy, and it was prescribed by the EU to allow easier access for Georgians to enter the Schengen Zone under the EU-Georgia visa liberalization action plan (VLAP).

Despite the fact that the policy brings Georgia in line with EU legislation, some have questioned the logic of the law. Specifically, many consider the law to be xenophobic and punitive, as Gavin Slade has argued. This change was likely made so that Georgia would not be an entry point for illegal migration to Europe via Turkey. With all of this in mind, readers may be interested in whether xenophobia is on the rise in Georgia. This post looks at the level of approval of foreigners marrying Georgian women, and at the level of approval of Georgian citizens doing business with other ethnicities between 2009 and 2013 (as a proxy for xenophobic attitudes in Georgia).  

If xenophobia were on the rise in Georgia, one would expect an increasing level of disapproval of doing business with foreigners or Georgian women marrying other ethnicities.  Yet, data from the Caucasus Barometer (CB) shows that xenophobia is not on the rise; approval rates for both interethnic marriage (27% on average) and for doing business with different ethnicities (77% on average) have not changed drastically from 2009 to 2013.

Note: Only ethnic groups that were consistently present in the CB from 2009 to 2013 were included in the average calculation. These include Turks, Russians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Kurds/Yezidis, Abkhazians, Ossetians, Americans, and Jews. This group is referred to as a ‘collection of ethnicities’. During the CB survey, respondents were asked “Would you approve or disapprove of people of your ethnicity doing business with,” and “Would you approve or disapprove of women of your ethnicity marrying,” followed by a list of ethnicities. Respondents were able to respond ‘approve’ or ‘disapprove’. Approve was coded as 1 and disapprove was coded as 0. In the graph above, averages of respondents’ answers to each ethnicity below or equal to 0.50 were coded as disapprove, and averages greater than 0.50 were coded as approve. The same method was used to calculate averages below. 

Although the above graph suggests that there has not been a pronounced increase in anti-foreign feelings in the last five years, some ethnicities are appraised as more favorable for marriage and business than other ethnicities. Generally, Russians, Americans, and Europeans of different ethnicities are viewed more favorably, and Yezidis/Kurds, Chinese, Iranians, Indians, and Turks are generally perceived as less favorable for marriage and business. The graph below shows views for marriage regarding these and other groups in 2013.

The figure also shows that marriages to ethnicities which tend to be Christian receive higher approval rates than to those generally associated with Islam and other non-Christian religions. The figure below gives averages of approval ratings for marriage and doing business with ethnicities that tend to be Christian, and with those that tend to be non-Christian from 2009 to 2013. The figure shows that Georgians have consistently approved of marriage (by 15 to 20 percentage points) with foreign ethnicities that tend to be Christian, than to those that tend to be non-Christian. It also shows that Georgians have been between 5 and 12 percentage points more likely to approve of business with foreign Christians as opposed to foreign non-Christians. Both trends have been stable over time.

Note: The category Christian in the above graph consists of Russians, Americans, Armenians, Ossetians, and Abkhazians. The non-Christian category consists of Jews, Turks, Yezidis/Kurds, and Azerbaijanis. Only ethnic groups that were consistently present in the CB from 2009 to 2013 were included in the average calculation. Calculations were made as described below the first graph in this blog post.

This blog post has shown that the average level of approval of doing business with foreigners, and Georgian women marrying foreigners, has not changed much in the past four years. The blog has also shown that differences in approval rates between specific ethnicities appear to be related to religion. Georgians are more likely to approve of marriage and business relations with ethnicities that tend to be Christian. Importantly, these levels have been quite consistent from 2009 to 2013 which suggests that, with respect to these specific factors, xenophobic attitudes are not on the rise in Georgia.

To explore issues related to marriage and business relations in Georgia, take a look at this blog post on Georgian nationalism, or examine the data directly with CRRC’s Online Data Analysis tool.

Museum Popularity in the South Caucasus

In the South Caucasus there is a tension between the desire to leave the Soviet past behind and the desire to re-evaluate history. Museums are one of the arenas in which the past, culture and history of any country (or nation) are captured. The International Council of Museums defines a museum as “A permanent institution for charity, to the service of the society and of its development”. This blog shows the changing situation of museums in the South Caucasus and reveals that the attendance rate is highest in Armenia although the country has the fewest number of museums in the region.

According to the national statistics offices of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia (the State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia and the National Statistics Office of Georgia), Azerbaijan is home to the largest number of museums in the region (227 in Azerbaijan, 183 in Georgia and 99 in Armenia). Azerbaijan has the largest population of the three states and Georgia has the greatest density of museums relative to its size and population. Additionally, Azerbaijan and Georgia have experienced the greatest increase in the number of museums. There has been a steady increase between 2005 and 2011 in Azerbaijan and a sharp increase from 2010 to 2011 in Georgia. Armenia, with the smallest population, also has the fewest museums in the region. 

Despite the fact that there were half as many museums in Armenia as in the other two countries in 2011, official statistics reveal that museum attendance is the highest in Armenia. Annual museum attendance in Armenia was relatively steady from 2005 to 2009 and then rose sharply after 2009. The number of visitors has almost tripled in Armenia since 2005, which reflects growing interest in museums in Armenia. The attendance rate in Armenia is more than three times higher than in Georgia even though there are almost twice as many museums in Georgia than in Armenia.

The increase in museum attendance in Armenia might be due to a number of factors, such as exhibition content, reduced ticket prices, effective advertising campaigns, and other possibilities. Additionally, tourism is one factor that might have an impact on museum attendance. However, data from the World Tourism Organization reveals that tourism was lowest in Armenia among all three South Caucasus countries from 2009-2011. In the last year, the tourism rate in Armenia was half that in Azerbaijan and four times lower than in Georgia. Thus, these numbers might suggest that museum attendance rates in Armenia are driven by locals rather than foreign visitors.

Data from the 2011 Caucasus Barometer (CB) also confirms that Armenians are the most keen to visit museums (or art galleries). CB data also indicate that this activity is most popular among women than men.

There is also a difference in the predominant type of museums found in each of the three countries: historical, memorial, local lore, arts and other. Museums engaged in collection, protection and the study of historical materials and monuments are predominant in all three countries. Again, data from the national statistics offices reveal a different distribution of the museums in the South Caucasus; memorial museums are the majority in Georgia, while most museums specialize in local lore and history in Azerbaijan, and the majority of museums are devoted to art in Armenia. The size of every museum possibly also affects its attendance rates, yet there is no data comparing their sizes in the region.

This blog shows that the number of museums negatively correlates with their attendance. Armenia has the fewest museums, yet it has the highest museum attendance rate. To add, it seems that museum visits are accelerated by locals in Armenia.

What types of museums do you find most appealing? What do you think explains the sharp growth of museum visits in certain countries? 

You can also explore the CB data sets on similar questions by visiting CRRC’s interactive Online Data Analysis tool at http://www.crrc.ge/oda/.

Tourism: Structure and Cost-sharing

A slightly specialized topic: what's the cost of tourism? Often suggested as a way of developing parts of the South Caucasus, especially Georgia, quickly, it's interesting to take a quick look, since in tourism many factors interact: business, environment, architecture, urban planning, societal habits, local versus national government, local and foreign expectations, and the challenge of reconciling all of those.

Gudauri, Georgia's main ski resort is an interesting example. It currently is being privatized again, after a previous privatization attempt did not succeed when the investor walked away after a few months, for a range of reasons, including local (they found it difficult to get all the land they needed to consolidate their holdings) and legal (apparently they were sued in a foreign court for a debt incurred by the Shevardnadze government, under an obscure clause).


In Gudauri the lifts are bundled together with the main Sport Hotel, as a single entity, a curious late 80s Austrian-Soviet venture. The bundling creates various problems: investments into the lifts may benefit all hotels and guest houses by bringing more visitors, but investment has to be undertaken by a single institution. The other hotels effectively are free riders.

This also raises issues at the end of season: now the lifts are beginning to run at a loss, with daily electricity costs about 600 GEL, and personnel costs of about 400 GEL, plus fuel costs for grading the pistes, starting anywhere at 300 GEL per day, depending on the weather. At a price per pass of 25 GEL, more than 60 skiers are needed in the resort, and as last weekend showed, it's barely more than three dozen at this time of year.

But: at this time of year, lifts start at nine o'clock (as opposed to ten, earlier in the season) and many people prefer to ski early before it gets too slushy, so that people now are even more likely to stay over, rather than drive up from Tbilisi. A few guest houses are actually full, and thriving. Of course, that money would dry up once the season is over, so the skiing is primarily kept to feed the guesthouses. Yet in the current structure, the lift operator still incurs a loss.

Generally, quality of service has seen a huge improvement in the last year, and the main variable is competent new management. But a lot of things still need to fall into place, and in the upcoming privatization one idea is to separate the lifts out, which may even be an option since this year for the first time the llifts have been making a profit.

In a way, the resort mirrors many of the intervowen challenges that need to be met (and who to meet them: national government? Local?), and in which growth typically throws up the next problem, such as the supply of drinking water to all the new buildings.

The World Economic Forum's Tourism Index in the South Caucasus

The Soviet Union was replete with traveler horror stories. So, more than a decade and a half down the road how have the countries of the Caucasus developed when it comes to tourism? The World Economic Form (WEF) has now developed the first comprehensive index to measure travel and tourism competitiveness. The WEF states that its index is not a "beauty contest" but concretely measures the attractiveness of developing a tourism industry in any given country. The scores are based on 15 variables grouped into three major categories -- regulatory framework, business environment and infrastructure, and human, cultural and natural resources. Each variable is ranked from 1-7. A country profile is also developed for each country to attractively display the data.

With a score of 4.13, Georgia ranks 66th in the world but number one in the CIS region -- though it is far outstripped by Estonia, which currently ranks 28th. Armenia and Azerbaijan follow closely on Georgian heels at 74th (3.93) and 75th (3.92) respectively. Tajikistan, not surprisingly, comes in last in the CIS region at 110th.

In the Caucasus, all countries do very well on the availability of human resources and none of the countries score particularly high on their natural and cultural resources (Armenia 78th, Georgia 81st, Azerbaijan 116th). Clearly, the authors of the report have not spent enough time in the region. Either that, or the indicators need to be adapted.

In the Georgia country profile (pdf), Georgia ranks low on all forms of infrastructure and somewhat better on the regulatory framework. Azerbaijan (pdf) does better on infrastructure, but worse on the regulatory framework, as expected. Armenia (pdf) splits the difference in the countries in terms of both infrastructure and regulatory framework issues.